E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)

From: John Foliot
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 3:00PM
Subject: Public vs. Private information
No previous message | Next message →

Polling for some ideas / opinions.

The scenario:
Database search returns back a large chunk of data about a person - some of
this data is public, but other bits are "private", and requires
authentication (logged in) for it to be exposed. The issue however is that
the query subject (person) gets to decide what is public and what is
private, so the field returns are variable; for example I can choose to list
my cellular number as public or private, but the choice is up to me. I may
choose public but my associate may choose private.

The problem:
The issue is how to denote what is public and what is private to
authenticated users (who are seeing both), given that for many (most) of the
individual field returns it can be either.

The on-screen return must match results each time (order), so dynamically
grouping the public stuff and the private stuff unfortunately won't work.

In the paper prototypes, the designer is displaying the public content in a
bold font and the private content in regular font (<strong>Public
Data</strong>), along with text that explains: "Information in bold is in
this person's public profile. All other information is available to you as
an authenticated user." (I wish I could show you, but the examples are
behind the wall)

Needless to say I am uncomfortable about this, as it is relying on a mostly
visual display to convey supplemental information. However I am drawing a
blank on ways of achieving the requirement that also meet accessibility
guidelines, short of adding a "private" icon with appropriate alt text at
the end of each private result. This could conceivably produce a page with
12 - 20 "private icons", an issue in it's own right.

If anyone has dealt with a similar scenario, I would be curious how you
resolved the issue (a link would be awesome!), however even if you have
never dealt with this, if you have an idea or opinion I'm open to both.

Thanks in advance.

JF
---
John Foliot
Academic Technology Specialist
Stanford Online Accessibility Program
http://soap.stanford.edu
Stanford University
560 Escondido Mall
Meyer Library 181
Stanford, CA 94305-3093

From: Kilcommons,Cath
Date: Tue, Nov 21 2006 3:00PM
Subject: Re: Public vs. Private information
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi John,

Is it really that much different from a form where there are required and optional fields? Do you think it could be handled in a similar way as one would handle color categorized information? Indicate it with asterisk? * = Required to remain private information, or some variation like that? Maybe an asterisk could be confusing but how about something like square brackets around info that needs to stay confidential?

I imagine this type of issue will become more prevalent and I am glad your asking this group about ideas on the subject.

Best regards,
Cath

++++++
Cath Stager-Kilcommons
ACCESS Project
Access

From: John Foliot
Date: Tue, Nov 21 2006 3:20PM
Subject: Re: Public vs. Private information
← Previous message | Next message →

Kilcommons,Cath wrote:
> Is it really that much different from a form where there are required
> and optional fields? Do you think it could be handled in a similar
> way as one would handle color categorized information? Indicate it
> with asterisk? * = Required to remain private information, or some
> variation like that? Maybe an asterisk could be confusing but how
> about something like square brackets around info that needs to stay
> confidential?

Well, visually they have "found" a solution, use bold or regular font face,
with bold (or rather: .public {font-weight:bold;}) items being public.
Visually this pretty much works, as the differentiation between the 2 is
fairly clear (and is further backed up with a text explanation). For screen
reading technology however, the solution is not apparent, as it is being
affected via CSS only. In fact, this is probably a perfect use-case
scenario for audio style-sheets, where a subtle voice shift would provide
the same differentiation that is being provided by the screen style sheet -
too bad AudioCSS is still a pipe dream.

Right now, the best option that has surfaced is to also add some text to the
dynamically generated output that reads "Private" (or some such), and style
it away from screen view by placing it left-of-screen
({margin-left:-999px;}). My concern however is that as more and more fields
are marked private that the audio clutter of hearing that phrase repeated
over and over will become an issue unto it's own.

Witness the following pseudo code from the wireframe prototype:

<div id="Profile">
<h3>Amber Oliver</h3>
<div id="CardView">
<dl>
<dt>Work phone(s):</dt>
<dd class="public">(650) 555-1234, (650) 555-1234</dd>
<dt>Email:</dt>

<dd><a
href="mailto:blah.stanford.edu">&lt;email&gt;@stanford.edu</a></dd>
<dt>Web page:</dt>
<dd class="stanford"><a
href="http://url">www.stanford.edu/people/aoliver</a></dd>
<dt>ID mail code:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">1234</dd>
<dt>Mobile phone:</dt>

<dd class="stanford">(650) 555-1234</dd>
<dt>Pager:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">(650) 555-1234</dd>
<dt>Email pager:</dt>
<dd class="stanford"><a
href="mailto:blah.stanford.edu">&lt;email&gt;@pager.stanford.edu</a></dd>
</dl>
</div>

<div id="FullInfo">
<h4>Stanford affiliation</h4>
<dl>
<dt>Affiliation:</dt>
<dd class="public">Administrative Systems, System Software
Developer</dd>
<dt>Email:</dt>
<dd class="stanford"><a
href="mailto:blah.stanford.edu">&lt;email&gt;@stanford.edu</a></dd>
<dt>Department:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">Department of Genetics </dd>
<dt>Work phone(s):</dt>
<dd class="public">(650) 555-1234, (650) 555-1234</dd>
<dt>Work fax:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">(650) 555-1234</dd>
<dt>Work address:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">255 Panama Street<br>
Stanford, California, 94305-1234</dd>
<dt>Profile:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">Blah blah blah fishcakes</dd>
</dl>

<h4>Home info</h4>
<dl>
<dt>Permanent phone:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">(640) 555-1234</dd>
<dt>Permanent address:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">123 My Street<br>
Anytown, CA 94305 </dd>
<dt>Mailing address:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">PO Box 123<br>
Palo Alto, CA 94500 </dd>
<dt>Temporary phone:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">(650) 555-1234 </dd>
<dt>Temporary address:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">2nd RV from South end of parking
lot<br>
Stock Farm Road<br>
Stanford, CA </dd>
</dl>
<h4>Names, SUNet IDs</h4>
<dl>
<dt>Other names:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">Amber Anna Alicia Oliver </dd>
<dt>Primary SUNet ID:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">aoliver</dd>
<dt>Other SUNet IDs:</dt>
<dd class="stanford">Amber.Oliver</dd>
</dl>
</div>

This is *one* profile entry - each member of the community has their own
profile. In this example however, 18 entries have been self-marked as
private (class="stanford") - remember as well that each profile owner has
control over what is private and public, so each entry is/can be unique.

The question then becomes, does hearing "Private" 18 times in this short a
burst have any negative impact? Will it become un-useable, unwieldy, or
frustrating? The distinction is important, but it is subtle at the same
time... All we really want to do is remind the user that it is private data
that should not be shared off campus - however the user has agreed to at
least share it at this level (you also have the option of not providing much
of the info - leaving the field blank if you choose - e.g.. Address info).
Does hitting the screen reader over the head with 18 "Private!" declarations
work? I think *I* would tire of it easily, but I really don't know. As I
mentioned earlier, a slight tonal shift via audio CSS would probably work
just right, but we don't have that as a practical option, so I am exploring
other possibilities.

So I re-pose another question: To daily users of Adaptive Tech, especially
screen readers, what think you? Thanks for any feedback.

JF

From: Tim Harshbarger
Date: Mon, Nov 27 2006 6:40AM
Subject: Re: Public vs. Private information
← Previous message | Next message →

John Foliot wrote:
>The question then becomes, does hearing "Private" 18 times in
>this short a burst have any negative impact? Will it become
>un-useable, unwieldy, or frustrating? The distinction is
>important, but it is subtle at the same time... All we really
>want to do is remind the user that it is private data that
>should not be shared off campus - however the user has agreed
>to at least share it at this level (you also have the option
>of not providing much of the info - leaving the field blank if
>you choose - e.g.. Address info).
>Does hitting the screen reader over the head with 18
>"Private!" declarations work? I think *I* would tire of it
>easily, but I really don't know. As I mentioned earlier, a
>slight tonal shift via audio CSS would probably work just
>right, but we don't have that as a practical option, so I am
>exploring other possibilities.
>
>So I re-pose another question: To daily users of Adaptive
>Tech, especially screen readers, what think you? Thanks for
>any feedback.

My thought is that repetition alone is not necessarily the most
important factor to determining if it will bother or frustrate the user.
I think there may be at least a few other factors that increase or
decrease the likelihood that the repetition will be bothersome or
frustrating.

I think one factor is the length of the phrase being repeated. The
longer, the greater the possibility for frustration. "Private" is
probably much less likely to cause frustration than "The information in
this field is private and may not be shared..."

Another factor may be how useful the information is in performing the
current task. I expect "graphic spacer" would be more frustrating than
"public."

I think another factor has to do with how much time the user thinks he
or she has to complete the fields. If the person believes he must
complete it within a certain time or feels rushed to complete it in a
short period of time, I think the repetition will become bothersome.

If you still have concerns about the repetition, you might want to ask
how essential is that information to the user when the user is filling
out those fields. It might be that the information is important, but
fits better in another place. It might be that it is best where it is
at now.

Hope this is of some use.

Tim

From: John Foliot
Date: Mon, Nov 27 2006 10:00AM
Subject: Re: Public vs. Private information
← Previous message | Next message →

Tim Harshbarger wrote:
> John Foliot wrote:
>> So I re-pose another question: To daily users of Adaptive
>> Tech, especially screen readers, what think you? Thanks for
>> any feedback.
>
>
> I think one factor is the length of the phrase being repeated. The
> longer, the greater the possibility for frustration. "Private" is
> probably much less likely to cause frustration than "The information
> in this field is private and may not be shared..."

Right. It is important to remember here that in this instance however, it
is not so much a form field that is being completed, but rather a number of
<dd> responses, some of which are private and others which are public.


>
> If you still have concerns about the repetition, you might want to
> ask how essential is that information to the user when the user is
> filling out those fields. It might be that the information is
> important, but fits better in another place. It might be that it is
> best where it is at now.

Well, unfortunately, I have no control over the source order or the
determination of the public/private status. The dynamically generated page
draws the <dd> content in the <dl>, where the <dt> are
pre-ordered/pre-determined. The <dd> content is flagged either private or
public in the database, but can be either depending on specific settings (it
is extended contact information, such as home phone, cell number, birthday,
etc.).

JF

From: ben morrison
Date: Mon, Nov 27 2006 10:10AM
Subject: Re: Public vs. Private information
← Previous message | Next message →

On 11/27/06, John Foliot < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Tim Harshbarger wrote:
> > If you still have concerns about the repetition, you might want to
> > ask how essential is that information to the user when the user is
> > filling out those fields. It might be that the information is
> > important, but fits better in another place. It might be that it is
> > best where it is at now.
>
> Well, unfortunately, I have no control over the source order or the
> determination of the public/private status. The dynamically generated page
> draws the <dd> content in the <dl>, where the <dt> are
> pre-ordered/pre-determined. The <dd> content is flagged either private or
> public in the database, but can be either depending on specific settings (it
> is extended contact information, such as home phone, cell number, birthday,
> etc.).

How about using a table with a private column & a public column?

I think in this instance a table could be suitable for the data...

ben
--
Ben Morrison

From: John Foliot
Date: Mon, Nov 27 2006 10:20AM
Subject: Re: Public vs. Private information
← Previous message | No next message

ben morrison wrote:
>
> How about using a table with a private column & a public column?
>
> I think in this instance a table could be suitable for the data...
>
> ben

Perhaps, but this pre-supposes 3 columns and that's not what is happening
here. Visually you have:

Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Phone: 555-1234 (Private)
Address: 123 Main Street, Anytown, USA (Private)
Job Description: Manager
Department: School of Funny Hats
Years Tenure: 5 (Private)

...all being rendered via a Definition List styled appropriately via CSS.

But thanks for the suggestion!

JF